Skip to content

Something urgent? Call us now! (852) 3416 1711

LGBTQ+ activists win landmark ruling

By Gabriella Chan

Hong Kong, 7 September 2023: The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has handed a partial – but still significant – victory to Hong Kong’s LGBTQ+ community this week by ruling that the government has not fulfilled its constitutional duty to provide a legal framework for recognising same-sex relationships. The top court has suspended its declaration for two years to give the administration time to come up with such a mechanism.

In its judgment, delivered on Tuesday, the CFA unanimously ruled against recognising same-sex marriage. However, by a three to two majority, it declared the authorities had failed to establish an alternative regime for legally acknowledging same-sex relationships, such as registered civil partnerships or unions.


The case was brought by gay activist Jimmy Sham, who married his partner in the United States in 2013, a union that is not recognised under Hong Kong law. He applied for a judicial review in 2018 for a declaration that local laws were unconstitutional since they recognised foreign heterosexual marriages but not same-sex ones such as his.

Sham – former convenor of the now-disbanded Civil Human Rights Front and currently remanded under the national security law – saw his application dismissed by the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal but was granted leave to take his case to the CFA.

The top court was asked to rule on three questions framed within the provisions of the Basic Law and Bill of Rights: first, whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage; second, whether the absence of any alternative means of legal recognition of same-sex relationships is a violation of the right to equality; and third, whether the non-recognition of foreign same-sex marriage is a violation of the right to equality.

CFA ruling

With regard to questions one and three, the judges were in agreement that the constitutional freedom of marriage guaranteed under the Basic Law and Bill of Rights is confined to opposite-sex unions, thus overriding equality protection in that legislation.

On question two, the court acknowledged by majority the need of same-sex couples for access to an alternative legal framework in order to meet basic social requirements and to have a sense of legitimacy which dispels any sense of them belonging to an inferior class of persons. “[T]he absence of legal recognition has been seen to be essentially discriminatory and demeaning to same-sex couples,” the judgement read.

The judges accepted the government would have flexibility in deciding the content of the recognition to be devised, including a “core” of rights necessary for establishing the legal framework.


In the absence of affirmative government policy to protect the rights of Hong Kong’s LGBTQ+ community, campaigners have been achieving piecemeal change through the judicial system. This week’s CFA ruling is a notable landmark. It could, potentially, pave the way for same-sex couples – who currently face various obstacles in their daily lives – to enjoy many of the marital entitlements given to their heterosexual counterparts.

In saying this, however, it should be stressed that we have no idea what sort of “alternative framework” the authorities will propose. There is risk that any attempt to draw narrow parameters will simply invite further litigation. It is expected the authorities may take a long time to establish a comprehensive system to recognise same-sex relationships. Nonetheless, it is pleasing to see our society moving, albeit slowly, towards becoming an all-inclusive one. 

For now, at least, the CFA is compelling the government to act. We await developments with interest and anticipation.

Gabriella Chan is a Senior Associate with BC&C. She focuses her practice on Family Law, being proficient in a wide range of matters arising from the matrimonial context, and is also active in the Hong Kong Family Law Association. She can be contacted at

38+ years of legal experience is just a click away.

Friendly and approachable, we are ready to answer your questions and offer you sound advice.

Contact us now


News & Knowledge

Learn more about what we do and what we say. Subscribe to our newsletter to ensure you receive our updates.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Law & More: Episode 31 – Mike Riley

Hong Kong, 28 September 2023: This time on Law & More, we welcome an old friend of the firm and someone who loves visiting Hong Kong, former English Premier League referee Mike Riley. In a wide-ranging discussion, Mike reflects on memorable moments in his career, his recently relinquished role as general manager of the elite […]

Read more

Fancy footwork from our finance chief

Grindelwald, Switzerland, 20 September 2023: Don your best threads and polish your dance moves, because night fever is coming to Hong Kong. That’s right, my groovy friends, we may be lacking a Bee Gees soundtrack and the flare-wearing 70s are long gone but – just like John Travolta in his career-making role – our leaders […]

Read more

Landslide exposes prosecution risk

By Alex Liu Hong Kong, 18 September 2023: Owners of luxury properties that are illegally modified or encroach on government land should brace for swift enforcement action from the authorities after the much-publicised landslide at Redhill Peninsula. Chief Executive John Lee has warned his administration will “take action in accordance with the law”, including prosecuting […]

Read more

BC&C lawyers attend wills briefing

Hong Kong, 13 September 2023: Boase Cohen & Collins lawyers were brought up to date on matters concerning wills, probate and estate administration when the firm hosted an in-house seminar. Our legal team heard from barristers Ken To and Matthew Choi, both of Sir Oswald Cheung’s Chambers, who gave a presentation on recent judgments and […]

Read more

NSL judges given sentencing flexibility

By Colin Cohen Hong Kong, 11 September 2023: A landmark Court of Final Appeal (CFA) judgment has provided welcome clarity regarding sentencing guidelines in national security cases. While confirming that mandatory minimum sentences are indeed mandatory, the top court has given judges leeway to consider – as they do in non-national security hearings – a […]

Read more